This is not a debate about policy as such—in fact, many of the people doing the argument seem to have a very vague idea about how the program works—but, as the antagonists realize, about the ideological content of MAGA. Some liberals have pointed out the irony tech-lords’ views on immigration align with their own and they should’ve remained Democrats. But I’m not sure I agree that the tech-bosses are just cosmopolitan liberals who disguised their views in order to get one over on the MAGA dupes. I thought I had to revise my view that the tech oligarchs would be closer to the MAGA core on immigration because they ultimately had a program to replace mid-level work with AI. This is not practical in the short-term However, on reflection, I think their position on immigration still reveals a highly illiberal and authoritarian conception of capitalism, something that even dimwitted critics like Steve Bannon have noticed in their references to “techno-feudalism.” There are three illiberal sources of pro-immigrant Trumpism so far as I can see:
H1-B is not exactly a liberal model of employment, in the classical sense of an economic regime where workers can leave their employment at will and seek jobs elsewhere. Of course, as critics of liberal capitalism have long pointed out, that’s a bit of a myth—the imperatives of hunger make freedom of contract a false freedom—but H1-B workers are particularly chained to their jobs: they cannot simply quit, and look for employment elsewhere without losing their legal status in the country. Some right-wing critics have labeled this a form of indentured servitude. And, indeed, because of this precarious status, these workers are particularly liable to discipline and exploitation, which is the point.
The vision of immigration they are propounding is not one of free movement of people and free trade in goods and services but a jingoistic and mercantilist one. You grab “the best people” from foreign countries to ensure productivity, export-led growth, and autarchy. This obviously appeals to Trump: it’s exactly how he views the world. And some centrist liberals are tempted by this because of their investment in a new Cold War with China.
Related to this “grab the best guys”-type mercantilism is the tech-lord’s highly racialized conceptions of labor and capital. The fight here is not between, on the one hand, colorblind cosmopolitan liberal meritocracy and, on the other, a backward ethnonationalism, but between fundamentally racist worldviews. The élite side of the debate advocates race science that organizes productive workers by intrinsic qualities, a kind of caste capitalism that purports to use “objective” measures to discover the highest IQ individuals and put them in the right spots. The “sophisticated” race science humpers are ready to gamely admit that sometimes whites, especially working-class and poor ones, are not as genetically fit as other race—particularly Asians and Jews—and therefore their subordination is justified in some way. Conveniently, this serves capital’s need for a disciplined and divided labor force. I called this once Lord of the Rings or Star Wars-type racism that puts different workers into species-containers and thereby tries to solve issues of labor unrest and the competitive marketplace. It usually provides a shared anti-blackness that glues together a coalition that might otherwise be torn asunder. (Antisemitism can also be of use here by attacking liberal cosmopolitan and “globalized” conceptions of capital as secret racial insider trading or national betrayal.)
Capital as such is notoriously free-floating and mobile—it cannot be pinned down—but this particular iteration of fetishized capital is static and implies a world of permanent hierarchies of value in terms of race, national interests, and, with cryptocurrency, deflationary notions of hard currency. It implies not a world of trade and exchange, but one of plunder, a kind of primary accumulation of human capital.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
While I was an Evangelical pastor for twenty-five years, I was bivocational for many of those years. That doesn’t mean I was a part-time pastor. As my partner of almost forty-six years will attest, I was a full-time pastor, while at the same time working forty hours a week for secular employers. In other words, I was a workaholic who was rarely home.
I worked all sorts of jobs, including management positions with four restaurant companies, a Christian bookstore, a direct medical equipment company, and the Village of Buckeye Lake, Ohio. My father was a small business owner, owning a hobby store in Findlay, Ohio, and a gun store in Sierra Vista, Arizona. As a teenager, working for my dad, I learned the ins and outs of running a business. While Dad and I didn’t have a relationship to speak of, I will always appreciate him teaching me the nuts and bolts of the business world.
One thing Dad taught me was this: The goal of any business is to make money. Such a novel thought, right? While people may start businesses because they are passionate about this or that — thinking that because they love to cook they can easily own and run a restaurant — the goal is always the same: to make as much money as possible.
The key to making money is attracting customers to your business. To grow a business, you need both regular and new customers. No company can survive without growing its customer base. I love watching shows such as Bar Rescue and Restaurant Impossible. These shows feature failing bars and restaurants, often operated by owners who have no real business experience. After all, how hard can it be to run a pub or a restaurant? As these ill-informed, uneducated owners learn, it is quite hard to run a successful business. In every instance, these businesses faced declining revenues because of reduced customer counts. Here’s the formula: fewer customers = less revenues. Granted, other factors play a part such as overhead costs, labor costs, food costs, etc, but generally, the more customers you have, the more you will make and the better off your business will be.
As a manager, I wanted to attract as many customers as possible. I didn’t care about their age, sex, gender, marital status, race, religion, political affiliation, or how they looked or dressed. All I wanted was their money. Capitalism 101, right? As a business owner or manager, my goal was to provide the best products and services possible for an affordable price. I went out of my way to make sure my stores were clean and provided customers with the best possible experience. Evidently, many Evangelical business owners think differently, using their businesses as tools to indoctrinate and evangelize their customers, choosing Jesus, the Bible, and religious dogma over making money.
I live in rural northwest Ohio — the land of God, Guns, and Trump. There are lots of Evangelical-owned businesses, everything from mom-and-pop stores to large manufacturing concerns. The owners of these businesses wrongly think that almost everyone who works for them or frequents their establishments is Christian. Sure, many locals claim membership at a local Christian church — even though they rarely, if ever, attend services — but a sizable percentage of residents are indifferent towards religion or are unbelievers. Thus, it is surprising to me — if making money is the goal — that Evangelical-owned businesses think everyone believes just like them; and likes what they like. How else do you explain business walls plastered with Jesus Junk®, ceiling speakers blaring Christian music, tract racks, and advertisements for the church the owner attends? As atheists, the last thing my partner and I want to be exposed to is Jesus, the Bible, or church advertisements. The other day, we ate at the China Dragon in Napoleon, Ohio. So-so food, but what annoyed the hell out of us was the music — WBCL, a local Evangelical radio station. Since when did contemporary Christian music (CCM) and Chinese stir fry go together? It was annoying, to say the least.
Evangelical business owners are free to do what they want, but they might want to pay attention to their service area’s demographics. If the goal is to make as much money as possible and attract new customers, then it stands to reason that aesthetics should be welcoming and neutral, and not advertisements for Christianity and the owner’s personal religious beliefs and practices. Take Samuel Mancino’s in Archbold, Ohio. We love eating at Mancino’s, but the Evangelical owner thinks Jesus and her church come before serving customers. Thus, the store is closed on Sundays (and Mondays) and closes early on Wednesdays so employees can go to church. The store is open four and a half days a week Evidently, locals don’t eat on Sundays, Mondays, after 2:30 pm on Wednesdays, or after 7:30 pm the rest of the week. Revenues lost, but, hey, everyone knows the owner is a Christian.
More than a few local businesses let potential customers know they are Christians by using religious symbols in their advertising — especially the cross and ichthys (fish) icons. These symbols are tribal affiliation markers, much like gang members wearing particular tattoos. These business owners want customers to know that they are frequenting a Christian-owned, Jesus-approved business. Because I’m unbeliever, these icons say to me that I am not welcome; that the business doesn’t want my money. Message received. You push Jesus, and I will spend my money elsewhere.
I am not anti-Christian. I know that most local businesses are owned and operated by people of faith. I don’t care what a business owner believes or doesn’t believe. What I want is hot food, and excellent service, at an affordable price. Sweetwater Chophouse in Defiance is one business that gets it, and that’s why I eat there with Polly and my friends several times a month. Many of the patrons around us are Christians. We know this because of their prayers before eating and their banter about Jesus, the Bible, and the church they attend. I am sure they can hear our ungodly, irreligious banter too. Such is the communal aspect of sharing meals in restaurants. Sweetwater’s goal is the same as it should be for every restaurant: to make as much money as possible while providing excellent food and service. If Sweetwater ever starts pushing religion, we will eat elsewhere. We want to give our hard-earned money to people who don’t view their businesses as advertisements for Christianity or tools to evangelize unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines. As an atheist business owner, I would never push my atheistic or humanist beliefs. I wouldn’t plaster the walls with Christoper Hitchens quotes or give 10% discounts to patrons who didn’t go to church. (Some businesses give church-attending customers a discount if they show the server a bulletin that proves they attended church.) Whosover will, let him come — and eat at my restaurant. 🙂 Christian money spends just like atheist money, and, as a business owner, I want as much money as possible, regardless of where it came from or how it was earned. Famed early 20th-century Fundamentalist evangelist Billy Sunday once was asked why he took money from bar owners. Sunday replied, “The Devil has had the money long enough.” Sunday didn’t care where the money came from, and neither should Evangelical business owners.
Years ago, I got into a heated discussion online with a local Evangelical business owner and avid Trump supporter. His storefront windows and walls were covered with Evangelical, pro-Trump, and anti-Obama/Clinton signs, pictures, and stickers. I told him that these things were driving away customers who believed differently from him. He told me that he didn’t care; that he didn’t want or need my money. Well, evidently he did. A few years later he went out of business. The reasons for his store’s closing were many, but one thing was certain: fewer customers = less income; less income = more financial pressures.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Two weeks ago, Polly’s boss, his boss, the head of human resources, and another man showed up unannounced at Polly’s office promptly at 6:00 pm start time, to inform her and her fellow employees that they were fired; effective March 28, 2024, their department was no more due to company restructuring, and their work outsourced to a private cleaning company. Polly later found out that one department employee was retained — a man. All the fired employees were women.
Polly worked for the company for twenty-seven years, NEVER tardy or missing work. Widely praised for her work ethic, Polly learned that being loyal to her employer didn’t matter; that all her hard work didn’t matter; that her high work standards didn’t matter. Five years ago, the company outsourced some of her department. At the time, I told her that this was a warning sign; and that there would come a day when the company, for financial reasons, would outsource the rest of her department’s employees. That time has come. Polly has learned that in a capitalistic system, she is just a line entry on a spreadsheet, one that was entered twenty-seven years ago, and with a couple of keystrokes will be deleted on March 28.
The company, for years, advertised itself as the “preferred place to work.” And it was until it wasn’t. Numerous benefits have either been cut or done away with altogether. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed, as annual deductible and maximum out-of-pocket amounts have dramatically increased, all the while pay raises were nominal, if at all, never keeping up with inflation. Nowadays, it is easy to find companies offering better wages and benefits. The company has become just another place to work.
The company is non-union. The argument back in the day was that the wages and benefits were such that a union wasn’t needed. Those days are long gone. If the company was union, Polly would still have a job. Instead, the company can fire whomever they want, and it makes perfect sense in a capitalistic system to get rid of “expensive” employees: long-tenured workers who cost more in wages and benefits. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to have a twenty-five-year-old employee compared to a sixty-six-year-old employee. Age and insurance costs can’t legally be used as continued employment criteria, but I do not doubt that Polly’s age and our family’s high insurance costs were factors in deciding to let her go.
Let me be clear, the company is having serious financial problems. I understand that it must cut millions of dollars of expenses if there is any hope for its survival. Market forces, Trump’s tariffs, runaway insurance costs, and import pressures have put the company in an untenable position. Unfortunately, when a company’s survival is at stake, there’s no time to consider what is best for individual employees and their families. The books must be balanced and, unfortunately, Polly and her fellow employees had to go.
Polly was “offered” other employment opportunities within the company. However, all but one of the jobs she is unable to physically do. This, of course, keeps the company from having to pay unemployment. Ohio is an at-will state. Employers can fire non-union workers for any reason. By offering Polly other employment, the company avoids paying unemployment if she refuses the offered jobs. Again, capitalism at its best.
Polly has several interviews over the next week. One was today. $4 an hour pay cut, with awful — might as well be non-existent — benefits. Family insurance costs? Almost $900 a month, with an annual $6,000 deductible and $14,700 maximum out of pocket. Polly has another interview on Monday with the private company that took over her department. Better wage, uncertain on insurance cost. She would still be a manager, with more employees working under her. Polly may have an opportunity to transfer to a subsidiary of the company she currently works for. This, of course, would be the best course of action, but I am not convinced that Polly can physically do the work. It might be one of those “try it and see” kinds of jobs.
The short-term effects are brutal. In two weeks, Polly will no longer work for the company. On that day, her insurance benefits will cease. This means that the surgery I have scheduled at the University of Michigan is off. We will have to start paying for our prescriptions, office visits, bloodwork, etc. We will likely be eligible for some government assistance, but Polly has to be out of work before we can apply for it. Worse, years ago the company went from a weekly to a biweekly pay schedule. At the time, they advanced employees one check to cover the pay change. Of course, it was understood that this advance would be collected when the employee was no longer employed by the company. That payday has arrived.
Polly and I have weathered many crises in our almost forty-six years of marriage. I am sixty-six and Polly is sixty-five. We are grizzled veterans in this thing called “life.” We will weather this challenge too, although we may have to make serious cuts to our finances and standard of living. One thing being poor has taught us, we know how to do without. We know how to slash the budget and live on Aldi boxed macaroni and cheese. That said, we prefer to maintain our lifestyle without interruption. Unfortunately, no one asked what we wanted — so here we are.
Polly is brokenhearted over how the company treated her. She naively believed that if she did well by the company, they would do the same for her. As someone with a lot of experience in the business world — mainly in managerial positions — I knew better; that companies, when it comes to profitability and stock share prices, don’t give a shit about their employees. All that matters is the bottom line. Yea! for capitalism. Polly has only had three jobs in our forty-six years of marriage. She has no real-world experience with how companies operate and how employees are treated. I know better, having watched numerous businesses (and churches) shit all over me and other employees. Thus, I am angry. Livid over how Polly was treated; livid over their lack of regard for her as a person; livid over how the company caused us grief with nary a thought. I am sure her boss felt bad, but what else could he do? His boss, HR, and upper management said Polly and her fellow employees had to go. His job was to facilitate what his higher-ups wanted.
Some aspects of all of this could violate employment law, but age or sex discrimination is almost impossible to prove. As someone who has hired and fired hundreds of people, I know it is easy to hide your true motivations for dismissing someone. A bigger issue is that two of our children still work for the company. Raising hell over this would likely cause them problems, and we certainly don’t want to do that. So, it is time for Polly to move on . . .
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
An Ohio bill adding capitalism to a high school financial literacy credit is one step closer to becoming law.
The Ohio House passed Senate Bill 17 with a 66-26 vote during Wednesday’s session. Four Democrats voted for SB 17 — Bride Rose Sweeney, Dani Isaacsohn, Elliot Forhan, and Richard Dell’Aquila. Every senator voted for SB 17 except state Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo.
The Ohio Senate must agree to changes in the bill before it heads to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk for his signature.
State Sen. Steve Wilson, R-Maineville, introduced the bill last year, which lays out 10 free market capitalism concepts that would be taught.
“One of the most important ways to prepare (students) for a successful life ahead is to make sure that they understand how money works and how that system works,” Wilson said last year during his sponsor testimony.
The current law requires the State Board of Education to adopt standards and curriculum for financial literacy instruction, but does not clarify what must be included in the standards or model curriculum.
The ten concepts proposed under SB 17:
Raw materials, labor, and capital are privately owned.
Individuals control their own ability to work and earn wages.
Private ownership of capital may take many forms, including via a family business, a publicly traded corporation, or a bank, among others.
Market prices are the only method to inform consumers and producers about the constantly changing information about the supply and demand of goods and services.
Both sellers and buyers seek to profit in a free market transaction, and profit earned can be consumed, saved, reinvested, or dispersed to shareholders.
Wealth creation involves asset value appreciation and depreciation, voluntary exchange of equity ownership, and open and closed markets.
The free market positively correlates with entrepreneurship and innovation.
The free market may involve externalities and market failures in which the cost of certain economic activities is borne by third parties.
The free market often accords with policies like legally protected property rights, legally enforceable contracts, patent protections, and the mitigation of externalities.
Free-market societies often embrace political and personal freedoms.
“It would be up to the teacher to decide how much time to use in their classroom as they’re adding these additional concepts,” state rep Adam Bird, R-New Richmond, said during Wednesday’s session.
As a former teacher, state rep. Sean Patrick Brennan, D-Parma, has reservations about SB 17.
“I can attest that it’s already a very daunting task to cover all the topics thoroughly in financial literacy,” Brennan said during Wednesday’s House session. “I’ve always believed in the foot-long, foot-deep model of teaching, rather than the mile-long, inch-deep model, where students are thrown a lot of material in a short amount of time, and not given sufficient time to master it and truly put it to use in their lives.”
Ohio Education Association President Scott DiMauro said he doesn’t think the “overall thrust of the bill” will make a major change.
“As a high school social studies teacher myself, I always taught about capitalism and the differences between capitalism and socialism in the classes that I taught, whether it was in history or government or economics, so I don’t know that it’s going to really make too much of a difference,” he said. “Kids are already being taught those concepts.”
The financial literacy class can be an elective or as a substitute for a half-unit of mathematics — something former teacher and state rep. Joe Miller, D-Amherst, is not a fan of.
“In Ohio, let’s teach students less math as we move into the advanced tech economy with Intel coming in,” he said during Wednesday’s House session.
Intel is coming to Licking County, but the Wall Street Journal recently reported the timeline to finish the $20 billion project has been delayed and won’t be ready until late 2026 or 2027.
Ohio’s current law requires teachers to have a financial literacy license in order to teach financial literacy, unless they teach social studies, family and consumer sciences, and business education.
Under SB 17, math teachers would be able to teach financial literacy.
The bill would allow high school students to meet their financial literacy requirements by taking Advanced Placement Microeconomics or Macroeconomics.
“I’ve known a lot of really bright AP students over the years,” Brennan said. “They’re incredible, but they have no idea the difference between a whole life life insurance policy and a term life insurance policy, or the various types of mortgage options available when one’s looking to buy a home.”
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
By C.J. Polychroniou, Common Dreams, Used with Permission
If we are to expect the frustrated and badly battered working-class people to turn their backs on the false promises of the far right and join instead the struggle for a more humane order based on socialist ideals and values, we need to take winning hearts and minds much more seriously.
For radical socialists, one of the most frustrating political experiences in the post-Cold War era is witnessing the dramatic deterioration of socio-economic conditions throughout the developed world and, at the same time, the failure of the Left narrative to convince the citizenry about the root causes of the problems at hand and that alternative socio-economic arrangements are in turn urgently needed. This is a paradox that open-minded radical socialists should not be hesitant to confront. A critical examination of the failure of the Left narrative to make inroads with the laboring classes in contemporary capitalist society is a must if the political pendulum is to swing back from conservative control.
The Left has always offered solid critiques about the state of capitalism. Armed with a class-driven perspective (“the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”) which has become increasingly complemented by a multi-level analysis that also brings into play the role of race, gender, culture and ethnicity, the Left narrative about the nature of the problems facing contemporary capitalist societies has no equal among politico-economic discourses. It explains economic inequality on the basis of the dynamics of a profit-driven system geared toward serving almost exclusively the interests of the dominant classes instead of treating it as an outcome of individual failures (the right-wing version of economic inequality); understands racism as a force of its own, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet as the Right does, but also recognizes that it’s continuation in present-day society is a consequence of specific institutional arrangements and both implicit and explicit biases; and advocates a succession of policies that aim toward the attainment of the common good instead of catering to the needs and interests of a tiny coterie of corporate and financial elites as conservative policies tend to do.
The Left narrative is intellectually rigorous but also couched in deeply humanistic terms. Since the French Revolution, the Left worldview has always been one that values the common good over narrowly defined private interests, progress over tradition, democracy over authoritarian rule. As such, it favors cooperation over competition, solidarity over rugged individualism, and science over religion and superstition. It is of little surprise, therefore, that the world’s greatest intellectuals, artists and writers in the modern age — from Victor Hugo to Arturo Toscanini and from Pablo Picasso to Jean Paul Sartre — have been to the left of the political spectrum. Indeed, in a continent where ideas have always been taken very seriously, one of the great grievances among 20th century European conservatives was over the fact that so few artists and intellectuals were to be found to the right of the ideological spectrum.
Nonetheless, no matter how intellectually and morally powerful it may have been, the Left narrative about the brutal realities of the capitalist system and the alternative values that should be guiding societal development was never the dominant political paradigm. The forces of reaction have always been a formidable opponent, relying both on the ideological and repressive apparatuses of the state to block radical change initiatives. From the brutal suppression of the Paris Commune by French and Prussian troops during the “Bloody Week” (21-28 May 1871), where some 30,000 Communards were killed, to the role of the CIA in promoting anticommunism in Europe in the period immediately following the Second World War to today’s strategic co-optation of once radical groups into mainstream political forces (the German Green Party, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, to name just a few), the powers that be have almost always found ways to create barriers to radical social transformation.
The Left narrative has also been undermined by the experience of “actually existing socialism.” Socialism, as practiced in the former Soviet Union and its satellite states, was undemocratic and had little tolerance for individual liberties and freedoms. The political system in place actually sabotaged the social, cultural, and economic achievements of “actually existing socialism,” which were in fact quite extensive, and it was a key factor in people turning away from embracing socialism as an alternative socio-economic order.
Formed in the periphery of the global capitalist system, where neither economic nor political development had yet to reach capitalist maturity (Russia was largely an agrarian society that had never before experienced democracy when the Bolsheviks took power in 1917), the type of socialism introduced functioned on the basis of the centralization of economic resources and institutions in the hands of the state and on single party governance. Workers had no say in economic decisions even though they were touted as co-owners of the means of production. This form of system became entrenched in the “motherland” of socialism after Stalin became an autocrat (1929-1953) and remained pretty much intact even during the so-called liberalization period that was ushered in by Nikita Khruschev (1956-1964), while even less changed under the leadership of Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982). In the land of “actually existing socialism,” the rulers possessed no wealth and had no private property of their own but made all the decisions for the rest of society. The USSR was at best a “deformed workers’ state.”
Still, socialist and communist parties in the western world were quite popular with the masses both during the interwar years and for much of the postwar period. Communist parties carried a great deal of influence in trade unions and student movements and socialist parties were in power in numerous European countries after World War II. Indeed, the future did seem to belong to the Left.
All this changed for the worse with the collapse of “actually existing socialism” and the end of the Cold War. Instead of feeling liberated by the collapse of authoritarian state-socialism, the western Left felt a loss of identity and entered a long period of intellectual confusion and political paralysis. Many of its intellectuals abandoned their long-held ideas about socialism and communism and turned instead to mainstream political discourses, while others fell into depression and retreated altogether from political and ideological struggles. Subsequently, postmodern philosophers emerged on the scene who not only challenged the ideals of socialism but, in one of the vilest interventions in the history of intellectual discourse, identified socialism and communism with the crimes of Stalinism. The works of Marx were either ignored or completely distorted. By the mid-1990s, the intellectual paradigm shifted from Marxism and socialism to postmodernism. Media outlets to the very left of the political spectrum saw their readership decline in substantial numbers, and communist parties fell out of favor with intellectuals, workers, and students alike. By the early 2000s, most western communist parties ended up in the dustbin of history while trade unions lost entirely their political character and turned ever more toward economism. The end result was that the vision of socialism suffered a tremendous blow and the Left narrative about capitalism became quite marginalized, having little impact on the laboring populations that were experiencing declining standards of living, growing economic insecurity, and a shrinking social state under the auspices of neoliberalism.
And this is where things still stand today. Socialism remains in deep crisis in the developed world, with the only exception being the United States, the only country in the developed world that doesn’t even have a left-wing political party.
Indeed, in the metropolis of the neoliberal capitalist universe, socialism is enjoying considerable popular support, especially among the youth. For the first time, socialism in the U.S. has ceased being a taboo. Yet, one could argue that some of the political figures most responsible for the rebirth of socialism in the United States (such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders) are not socialists per se and that their fight is on behalf of a light version of European social democracy.
To stress this point further, the progressive struggle in the U.S. is over a series of selected economic and social issues (universal healthcare, student debt elimination, unionization, and defending social security and Medicare) when Europe’s postwar left-wing movements and parties, especially from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, were aiming for nothing less than the radical transformation of the entire capitalist system. Social rights such as free higher education and free healthcare had already been realized in western European countries, thus making the struggle for socialism not issue-oriented but a holistic project. For example, demands for the socialization of the means of production were on top of the political agenda of all radical left parties and organizations in western Europe. The French communist party did not shy away from labelling the socialist revolution and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as its key strategic objectives. Yet, indicative of how sour things have gone for the socialist project since the end of the Cold War, popular forces in many European countries find themselves today fighting for the mere protection of basic social rights as the wrecking ball of neoliberalism is in full swing, seeking to destroy the last vestiges of the social state.
The Left narrative is failing to convince the bulk of the citizenry in today’s western world not because the analyses advanced about the consequences of neoliberal capitalism are incorrect but because the vision of socialism itself rarely enters the equation. Leftist intellectuals shy away from making a case for socialism. Critiques of neoliberal capitalism are not in themselves a case for the radical transformation of capitalism and its eventual replacement with a socialist socio-economic order. Critiques of neoliberal capitalism without the ideological underpinnings of a socialist vision ingrained into the analysis suggest that there is no alternative to capitalism, only a better version of capitalism. And today’s Left narrative is overwhelmed with critiques of neoliberal capitalism, which are of course very much needed, but remain largely silent about the question of a future beyond capitalism.
If we are to expect the frustrated and badly battered working-class people to turn their backs on the false promises of the far right and join instead the struggle for a more humane order based on socialist ideals and values, then the ideological battle for the minds and hearts of the laboring populations must be resumed. The vision of socialism must return in full force to the public arena. Ideological belief systems matter in politics. They are what motivates people into political action.
There are, however, also systemic factors responsible for the failure of the Left narrative to convince the laboring population in the developed countries. On the one hand, the ideological apparatuses of late capitalism have elevated the art of political apathy to such great heights that they have succeeded in making an increasingly large segment of the citizenry feel totally helpless about the possibility of making a meaningful change through participation in political struggles. At the same time, they are creating the illusion that success and failure are a matter of character, and that self-realization can be attained based on the pursuit of purely self-centered activities rather than through engagement with other human beings in common struggles for a better future for all. Whether it is the entertainment industry or marketing strategies for consumers, the prevailing mode of reference is the “self,” the individual as an isolated unit with “unique” experiences. Social injustices are virtually never brought into light by the system’s ideological apparatuses, including public education which acts under capitalism as a mechanism for creating social consensus around mainstream values and beliefs. The corporatization of higher education, with its overwhelming emphasis on market skills instead of critical pedagogy for the betterment of society and the enhancement of the democratic ethos, has also contributed immensely to the politics of apolitical culture.
On the other hand, the political agencies and the cultural institutions that are needed for the enhancement of working-class consciousness and for activating the Left narrative into action have been extensively weakened and, in some cases, even become extinct. As stated earlier, communist parties in western Europe are mostly gone while their socialist counterparts have moved so far to the right that they are now virtually indistinguishable from Christian Democratic and conservative parties in general. As for today’s radical left parties, they are anything but radical and reflect the ideological confusion that is the hallmark of multiculturalism and the politics of identity. In sum, the working classes in the developed world find themselves today without mass-based political parties that represent the interests of labor. Little wonder then why working-class people are drawn to the far-right as the leaders of those parties claim to be fighting for the primacy of workers’ interests.
Until a few decades ago, the working-class people throughout the developed world could not only rely on mass parties representing specifically their own interests but also had their own cultural institutions whose mission was to foster ideological awareness and forge proletarian culture. Socialist and communist newspapers made an immense contribution to working-class consciousness and raised the level of radicalism. Trade unions performed an equally important role by organizing various educational and social activities that enhanced solidarity. With the collapse of “actually existing socialism” and the onset of a socialist crisis, all working-class institutions experienced a dramatic fallout. In Italy, l’Unità, which had been founded by Antonio Gramsci and was the official newspaper of the Italian Communist Party, went under. In France, the venerable L’Humanité has been struggling for years with financial woes and low circulation. As for workers’ clubs, they are a thing of the past.
In conclusion, the Left narrative, no matter how accurate and intellectually powerful it may be, cannot expect to catch the imagination of the citizenry without including a vision for a real alternative future. Moreover, working-class cultural institutions need to be reinstituted for the enhancement of class consciousness and authentic socialist parties need to be rediscovered for the Left narrative to become politically effective. Social movements are important, but their actions rarely have lasting effects. Only political parties can succeed in forging the Left narrative into the policy agenda and turn it into a programmatic plan for radical social change. Understandably enough, this is quite a tall order, but the Left needs to win once again the hearts and minds of the laboring classes. But it needs the necessary political agencies and cultural instruments to do so. It cannot accomplish it on intellectual grounds alone, especially with the politics of identity acting as a spearhead for social transformation. The Communist Manifesto would have remained just a mere political document if it wasn’t for the existence of radical political parties across the globe to embrace it as their guide and vision for the emancipation of the working class from the yoke of capital.
In conclusion, the Left narrative, no matter how accurate and intellectually powerful it may be, cannot expect to catch the imagination of the citizenry without including a vision for a real alternative future. Moreover, working-class cultural institutions need to be reinstituted for the enhancement of class consciousness and authentic socialist parties need to be rediscovered for the Left narrative to become politically effective. Social movements are important, but their actions rarely have lasting effects. Only political parties can succeed in forging the Left narrative into the policy agenda and turn it into a programmatic plan for radical social change. Understandably enough, this is quite a tall order, but the Left needs to win once again the hearts and minds of the laboring classes. But it needs the necessary political agencies and cultural instruments to do so. It cannot accomplish it on intellectual grounds alone, especially with the politics of identity acting as a spearhead for social transformation. The Communist Manifesto would have remained just a mere political document if it wasn’t for the existence of radical political parties across the globe to embrace it as their guide and vision for the emancipation of the working class from the yoke of capital
The Left has always offered solid critiques about the state of capitalism. Armed with a class-driven perspective (“the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”) which has become increasingly complemented by a multi-level analysis that also brings into play the role of race, gender, culture and ethnicity, the Left narrative about the nature of the problems facing contemporary capitalist societies has no equal among politico-economic discourses. It explains economic inequality on the basis of the dynamics of a profit-driven system geared toward serving almost exclusively the interests of the dominant classes instead of treating it as an outcome of individual failures (the right-wing version of economic inequality); understands racism as a force of its own, instead of trying to sweep it under the carpet as the Right does, but also recognizes that it’s continuation in present-day society is a consequence of specific institutional arrangements and both implicit and explicit biases; and advocates a succession of policies that aim toward the attainment of the common good instead of catering to the needs and interests of a tiny coterie of corporate and financial elites as conservative policies tend to do.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Incandescent bulbs are now officially banned in the United States. Global temperatures dropped five degrees upon hearing the announcement. That’s sarcasm, by the way. I propose a ten-year study on this issue to determine whether getting rid of incandescent bulbs and replacing them with LED bulbs — oh CFL bulbs, the savior of our world, where did you go? — makes any meaningful difference in US or global temperatures. My money is on no.
Yes, LED bulbs use less electricity, but they also are more expensive. One report says the average American family of three will save a trip through the drive-thru at McDonald’s on their annual electric bill by totally switching over to LED bulbs. The report failed to add the cost of the LED bulbs into their equation, so I suspect the savings is minimal.
Remember when CFL/LED bulb manufacturers said their products would last 5-7 years and proudly advertised this “fact” on their bulbs? Consumers quickly learned this claim was a lie. Most bulb manufacturers no longer make life expectancy claims/warranties for their products. Of course, Americans should be used to manufacturers lying to them. Lifetime warranty on my $8 can-opener, my ass. The federal government should do something about these lies, but it won’t. Campaign donations keep such inquiries and enforcement to a minimum.
Using only LED bulbs is much like recycling — feel-good things we can easily do, but make little difference in battling global warming. If we want to concretely do something meaningful about global warming, we must make hard, painful decisions about how we live and what we consume. First-world countries and rising Asian countries have no interest in doing what is necessary to save our planet (Or better put, save our habitation. Once the next great extinction kills us off, the planet will get on just fine without us.)
Are we willing to drive less, fly less, eat less, buy less, consume less — “less” being the key operative? Can we envision a world where we have less than previous generations? Hard choices are required, but I don’t see the necessary political will to effect such changes. Americans will simply not abide by politicians telling them to do with less. We want what we want, and we want it now. God dammit, we are AMERICANS!
Capitalism lies at the heart of the global warming crisis. As long as companies put profits and shareholder returns above moral and ethical responsibilities, there’s no hope for a better tomorrow. I am not sure that hoping for a better tomorrow is anything more than a fantasy. We glowingly talk about the American dream and American exceptionalism when reality tells a very different story. We can chant USA! USA! USA! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! at football games and political rallies, but virtually every metric suggests we are a declining empire, that is killing itself one arrogant, self-righteous choice at a time.
By all means, change all your lightbulbs — I have. But, don’t delude yourself into thinking that it will make much difference. I am a cynic, which is just another word for a realist. We have likely crossed the line of no return. Weather extremes are the norm. Our oceans are rising. We continue to kill off animal species at an alarming rate. We stupidly think that “science” will ride to the rescue and save us; that a technological “fix” for what ails us is just around the corner. No such savior is coming to deliver us. We made this mess and now we must bear the consequences of our “sins.”
I will soon be dead, so I don’t worry much about how these things will affect me. My plane is circling the runway, getting ready to land. I do, however, have six children who could live to the year 2060 and thirteen grandchildren who could still be alive in 2100. I have palpable worry and fear for them. What kind of world are Grandpa and Nana and fellow boomers leaving behind? Will 2100 be a technological wonder or a mash-up of Mad Max, Waterworld, and The Road? I want a better tomorrow for them, as all grandparents do, but everything I see and know tells me that difficult days lie ahead for those I love most.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Jesus was the ultimate salesperson who ever lived. Think about this: Jesus sold people on a revolutionary new way of thinking. He convinced followers to join him in going against the cultural norms of the time; He preached love and forgiveness, ate with the sinners, and challenged the status quo. He also treated people with respect and integrity and was always a servant.
Jesus was also the best-ever at recruiting. People followed Him despite risking imprisonment and death, yet they followed Him. Even to this day, over 2,000 years later, He is still recruiting people. And those He recruited are also still recruiting others.
After extensive field research and years of firsthand experience, I’ve come to the conclusion that sales professionals and business owners who sell need a clear, compelling example from which to draw inspiration and ideas. And the best example for successful selling comes from a global leader who set foot on earth 2,000 years ago: Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, we are proud to announce the launch of Sell Like Jesus.
Sell like Jesus uncovers the essence behind communication strategies that Jesus used 2,000 years ago: What they are, why they worked, and how they can be applied in a sales setting today to improve your results. What is clear is that Jesus was a consummate listener, observer and leader — who quite literally changed minds and hearts, and motivated people to act. In other words, he was a spectacularly successful sales professional.
The best salesperson ever? The best recruiter of all time? What evidence do we have for Brown’s and Maher’s claims? None, absolutely none. Charles Manson and Jim Jones recruited far more people in their lifetimes than Jesus. How many followers of Jesus were in an Upper Room in Jerusalem after his death? One hundred and twenty. Thousands may have heard Jesus preach, but few of them followed after him. The growth of Christianity in the first three centuries was quite slow, and this growth was not due to the most amazing salesperson ever, Jesus. It was the Apostle Paul who took his traveling medicine show to the Gentiles; and if anyone should be praised for the growth of Christianity, it is Constantine — the man who institutionalized Christianity and gave state sanction to the sect.
Whatever Jesus was selling 2,000 years ago, it bears little resemblance to what Evangelicals sell today. I doubt Jesus would be pleased with being used as an illustration for good sales and recruiting techniques. I doubt he wanted his words and actions turned into slick, generic sales programs and training exercises.
As far as Jesus being the best-ever recruiter, his recruitment numbers suggest otherwise. By all accounts, Jesus was a failure. In fact, according to the Bible, Jesus knew he would be a failure; that following him was a narrow gate and a straight road, and few people would walk this path. Brown might point to recruitment numbers in the modern era, but are these cultural Christians remotely following after the Jesus who said, let a man deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me? I think not. Denial doesn’t sell, but comfortable buildings, professional bands, shallow boyfriend-girlfriend songs, and felt-needs sermons sure do; sermons that rarely, if ever, call on hearers to deny their materialism and minister to the people the Bible calls “the least of these.”
Much like other Evangelicals, Brown and Maher are making money off of Jesus by manipulating and twisting his teachings and testimony to promote capitalism. Jesus can’t speak for himself — he’s dead — but I can. I may be an atheist, but I can spot bastardized Christianity from a mile away.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
The greatest disease threat to humans is not wildlife; it’s our fellow homo sapiens.
If states such as Alabama and Texas can ignore Federal court orders without consequence,other states will do the same, upending the rule of law.
Many Christian nationalists and white supremacists are itching for a civil war.
Disgraced ex-president Donald Trump will be indicted in Georgia. If convicted, Governor Kemp will pardon him.
Following Governor Ron DeSantis’ explanation of slavery, I think I’ll kidnap a Haitian teenager, keep him locked up in my garage, and teach him to mow my lawn and trim my trees. One day, after he becomes the CEO of IBM, he will thank me for treating him like a slave.
At the root of capitalism is the exploitation of labor; getting the most work and productivity out of employees for the least possible money.
Polly heard cicadas last week. Fall is sneaking up in the upper Midwest. Soon a wooly worm will be seen crossing the road.
The Cincinnati Reds will make the playoffs this year if they trade for starting pitching before the August 1 trade deadline.
Bonus: Sex gets better after sixty, but those damn Charley horses sure are annoying.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Ohio’s Republican Governor says Vote No on Issue 1. Every once in a while Mike DeWine does the right thing.
If a Republican wins the 2024 presidential election, he will pardon Donald Trump.
Brown shoes should never be worn with blue dress pants.
My wife, Polly, makes the best potato salad.
Most meat comes from factory farms. If Americans toured such farms, they would become vegetarians overnight.
Yogi Bear was a capitalist, taking that which belonged to someone else for his own.
Current inflation is primarily caused by excessive price increases and not rising labor costs.
If you’ve seen one Indiana Jones movie, you have seen them all.
Capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is a bigot, racist, and fascist.
Bonus: There should be a federal tax on bullets, much like the tax on cigarettes.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
One of the most enduring ideas in economics is that free markets bring peace between countries. It comes from the notion that commerce drives humans to follow their mutual material interests rather than make destructive war due to passions.
This was the animating force behind the U.S. granting China its “most-favored-nation” trade status in 2000, which allows for free trade and economic cooperation. Republicans and Democrats alike assured the public that the deal would bring “constructive engagement” and expose communist China to America’s “ideals” of democracy. Where are we today? Beijing has moved closer to authoritarianism, economic competition is fiercer than ever, and American and Chinese diplomatic relations are near a crisis point, with both countries brandishing threats of war. Free trade has brought some peace, but it has not brought lasting friendship between the world’s two superpowers.
The same point could be made for Russia. Germans clearly thought that free trade for Russian oil would bind Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy to democratic Europe and lead it toward a more prosperous and open society. Instead, it weakened democratic Europe’s capacity to respond to Putin’s dictatorship and his bloody invasion of Ukraine.
Does this mean that the old idea of a “gentle commerce” of free markets, famously espoused in the French Enlightenment, is dead? Perhaps it never really existed. History shows that free markets can be a basis for friendship between powerful nations, but they are far less successful at securing peace and democracy than many have hoped. In fact, the noble talk of the free market was sometimes simply an excuse to engage in the kind of “great power” competition that too often leads to war and plunder.
….
When British free marketeers managed to liberalize their own markets with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, it heralded a laissez faire era in Britain but did not bring international peace. Richard Cobden, the famed free market leader of the Anti-Corn Law League, believed that free markets, pacifism, industrial know-how, Christianity and good work ethics would lead Britain to home-grown prosperity for the working man. Indeed, the very confidence and wealth that buoyed so many British to believe in the superiority of free markets was grounded in colonial ideals and wealth. The British colonial leader John Bowring used evangelical terms, claiming that imperial force and laissez faire economics could only bring good: “Jesus Christ is free trade,” he exclaimed, “and Free trade is Jesus Christ.” But the Pax Britannica of the Empire was based on gunboats, violent coercion and the pillaging of riches from colonialized nations. It is now estimated that Britain stole more than $40 trillion from India alone during the hundred-year rule of the Raj.
And while empire created a free trade zone for the British, it also sparked an almost constant series of colonial wars — from the more than 100 years of war with France in the eighteenth century, to another century of overseas wars with peoples and states in the Caribbean, China, India, Burma, New Zealand, Persia and Africa. Indeed, to gain free market agreements with Latin American countries, Turkey and China, the British relied on military threats. Free trade remained based on naval might. While some British free marketeers called for an end to the reliance on colonialism, confident that free trade agreements with other industrial powers brought peace and advantage to industrially superior Britain, Britain’s competitors began to see that if they wanted the free trade and imperial advantages enjoyed by Britain, they too would need to arm.
In 1905, the Cambridge critic of free market economics William Cunningham prophetically warned that the militarization of Japan, Russia and Germany was in direct response to Britain’s one-sided imperial free market and that it could lead to world wars. These countries could not compete with Britain, so from the 1870s to the 1890s, Russia, Italy, Germany, France and America were putting up tariffs against what they considered Britain’s domination of world commerce. Hungry for Britain’s empire and markets, Europe moved toward world war.
When World War I arrived, it could be seen as either a product of protectionism and trade war, or, as Cunningham said, a reaction to imperial free market Britain’s dominance. In any case, with rising nationalism and communism, hope for universal free trade faded. The most famous of the Austrian free market thinkers, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, formed their free market thought in response to rising socialism, but also in reaction to the Nazi regime which forced them to flee Austria to the United States. Both thought that the state was the ultimate danger to peace, but in the end, when World War II was over, the American state bankrolled the rebuilding of Britain, France, Germany and Japan, using the Marshall Plan to rebuild, but also to dictate democracy to, former foes, and, in doing so, to create the most successful economies of the modern age. Paradoxically, the United States provided well over $150 billion in today’s dollars to European countries, and more than $20 billion to Japan, as well as backing government intervention into these economies, to lay the groundwork for a future democratic free trade zone.
During the Cold War, America’s massive military kept the peace among its industrialized, democratic partners, while waging a cold and hot war against communism around the globe. U.S. government support, peace, prosperity and free trade were the dividends for America’s allies. But the global conflict with communism again meant that it took war and government support to establish democracy and, potentially, free markets through the GATT agreements that began in 1947 and expanded throughout the 20th century.
Even when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, a real possibility for peace emerged with the normalization of relations between America, Russia, Europe, India and eventually China. During this period, free markets expanded — but even in peacetime, military budgets have exploded under presidents of both parties. And still, with much of the world embracing free trade, the United States again went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending trillions of dollars, and, one might argue, squandering its own free market peace dividend.
Now we arrive at a more perilous moment. Democracy is in retreat around the world. The global economy seems poised for a recession. And war has broken out in Europe, while tensions rise between the U.S. and China. Meanwhile, public skepticism about free trade is surging in this populist moment. Can free markets keep the peace? We must hope they can. However, history shows that free trade is often in the eye of the beholder, anyway. Ultimately, a military based pax or deeper common interest might be necessary to keep commerce and the world on gentle terms.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
